Ok... If I adopt this perspective - that a gerund is a list ARs of verbs and only verbs - I run into some ... ambiguities ... that might be worth some thought:
[1] In the left tine of a fork, a noun AR is treated as a verb AR (derived with "_). [2] When I look at the dictionary page for agenda, it does *not* state that m must be a gerund for the [email protected] case -- it only states that requirement on the [email protected] case (where it's trivial to know the result at parse time). Anyways ... maybe I need to sleep on this, because I'm still not sure what I am overlooking. -- Raul On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:29 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > You are right. In m`:0 and m`:3 m must be a gerund, while in m`:6 m can > contain any valid ARs. > > Henry Rich > > On 9/6/2018 12:15 PM, Raul Miller wrote: > > That said, in the mean time, I would imagine that the left argument to > > the Evoke Gerund conjunction (`:) must be a gerund, and that context > > certainly has allowed trains which included non-verb ARs. > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
